Written By:
- Date published:
10:20 am, May 14th, 2026 - 33 comments
Categories: chris bishop, infrastructure, nicola willis, public transport, transport, uncategorized -
Tags:
Recently the previous CEO of City Rail Link Ltd said that City Rail Link could have been done $2 billion cheaper.
As a result, the Minister of Transport announced a review of the costs of City Rail Link.
But first, Bishop is going to sign off on the most expensive roading infrastructure we have ever had.
Now, as to why the previous CEO of the project over 7 years could not in that time find places to reduce scope and cut costs, when there were many challengeable design elements still in play when the Alliance contract was agreed, one would need to ask him.
The question to address here is political.
Why is the Minister of Transport about to let a $4+ billion Public Private Partnership contract for a section of SH1 towards the Brynderwyns in the same month as he’s announcing a review of our largest and costliest infrastructure project before it has even opened?
City Rail Link went through tortuous Treasury gateway reviews before a works contract was signed by Minister Bridges in October 2016. Since that time four successive governments have received project updates and reports, with many of them attracting headlines, together with endless reviews and updates to government.
Late last month Ministers Willis and Bishop signalled that the quality of information they were receiving about large infrastructure projects was so concerning that they have taken that reviewing and reporting task off Treasury and onto the NZ Infrastructure Commission. Minister Willis explained:
When it comes to assurance, there are multiple project review tools across the investment system that serve slightly different purposes and have different assessors, information requirements, reporting formats, and outputs.
However, none of these tools provide Ministers with unapologetically strong, clear, and actionable assurance that is focused on substance as opposed to bureaucracy, so that we can make well-informed investment decisions.
What ministers need is clear, frankly expressed ‘go/no go’ expert advice on each project.”
It is time that the National Party stopped writing cheques with its mouth that its ass can’t cash. They want the big heroic projects and they sign up for them, oh sure. But they feel the need to go to the bathroom before the waiter arrives with the bill. And then they complain about it.
If ever there were a moment to push pause on the bloated SH1 Warkworth to Te Hana state highway, it is right now.
Warkworth to Te Hana SH1 is 26 kms and $4 billion from an estimated $22 billion project.
We are in the middle of an oil crisis that will depress our economy for at least the next year. The National Land Transport Fund has no money left after all the massive storm cleanups which are continuing now annually. The next reckoning of NZTA income to expenditure will not be until the 2027 National Land Transport Program since the current NLTP has gutted everything but Roads of National Significance.
Those are very good reasons to call a halt to such a massive liability on us all. It is indeed time for the Go/NoGo moment at a Cabinet level, not an NZTA Board level.
Six months from an election, I would ask the same questions to the Greens, Labour, Te Pati Maori and NZFirst that GreaterAuckland has asked:
Minister, follow your own advice and stop this madness.
Robbie
As an ex-teacher, I would welcome such investment in 'reading' infrastructure – but I suspect you mean 'roading.'
And I agree – stop this roading madness!
[Haha have fixed – MS]
+100 Robbie. Great post.
72% of the cost of the City Rail Link for 26 kilometres of road. Scandalous, and that is before the inevitable cots overruns which will probably mean it will cost the same as the CRL.
And this from the government that supposedly supports cost-cutting and budget-balancing. As the post says….madness.
Fark…absolutely !! I remember throughout the years of this, wondering, (and indeed commenting on The Standard and elsewhere) why?
And…why not get Urban Light Rail…up and running, on Rails as it were, so people could see, and ride, the advantages of same?
It could, and should have been done….the shame of it.
History…
So many other countries have an awesome Urban Light Rail/Trams/Public transport system. It all works.
Update…
“Now not the time to lodge land designation for Auckland light rail, board decides”
Labours Chris Hipkins…
“National has promised to dump Auckland’s light rail project if it is elected later this year, but Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has confirmed light rail will be part of Auckland’s future under a Labour-led government.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/495404/now-not-the-time-to-lodge-land-designation-for-auckland-light-rail-board-decides
Yep people blame Labour for not getting light rail done when it was all down to Peters.
IMO his
agedmalevolentthumbprint has been on so many adverse NZ decisions.Absolutely!
Jeanette Fitzsimmons told me once – as we were driving over to a Climate Change Seminar in Hamilton regarding NZ's commitment to reducing GHG emissions prior to a COP – how she first became aware of the change by NZ from a Carbon Tax to the now practically defunct ETS. She was called into the PM's office an saw on the desk the draft for the soon to be legislated ETS – a Winston First initiative.
Aye Macro, thanks for that Local Knowledge. (Sadly, I never met Jeanette Fitzsimmons, lucky you : )
"his
agedmalevolentthumbprint"The mark of the Mummy
In theatres soon
Critics have panned its wildly (almost manically so) divergent themes…. hopefully a short run ending in November : )
When a Big Studio has found a heart-throb/hero, they'll animate him with their special spices, articulate his desiccated limbs with ambrosia from the Fountain of Wealth and employ their Special Effects to prevent us from seeing the dancing cadaver for what it is.
Winston may well have expired 10 years ago.
Or 20.
Lol. Some years back, when Wily was freshly arisen, as it were, there were some whisperings about that….I linked (seemed appropriate..and, IMO an awesome song : )
This is undoubtedly political, but at the same time its not the worst idea of this government. There should be a review of the costs into every major government project – which I think there is
Great idea MJR…I am assuming you mean that they should use Bill English (again) and a few other National cronies doing it at $1500 an hour for several months with a pre-ordained conclusion.
Marvellous.
That's a pretty dumb assumption
You gonna finish that sentence?
I think he's finished.
That’s the thing with eureka moments, they’re over in a flash and then leave you to piece together and figure out what it means for the larger picture.
You describe the Great Failing of Modern Man so well, Incognito.
Grasping at the yellow-straws, in order to weave them into gold is our continuous downfall – Rumplestiltskin has tried and tried to warn us!
Orpheus is our test-case; he almost made it, battling his logical mind that kept saying to him, where's the evidence, where's the evidence, till he broke and turned to confirm with his eyes that which his heart was saying – bam! back to square one!
Parsing the eureka moment might result in "another scientific breakthrough" but the heart of gold will vaporise.
The project was built expensive because it included the capability for longer trains (larger stations), one way to provide for population growth/greater urban density.
The alternative was small trains (smaller stations) continuous services.
The same short-term thinking permeates the CoC trashing of the IRex project. Why pay for a world class connection with ample room for growth when you can get smaller vessels for the same price and less future-proofing?
Everything has to be big and showy it seems. We have large ebuses in Nelson often with one or two people in them. They are heavier and we have had to repair road edges and improve the metal bedding where they park and also have built a new park for them.
Money is no object down here. Council thinks, 'What's yours is mine, and what's mine – forms part payment for some new fancy that will pay back by the year 2045. That's if the weather happens mostly on the Ramtops not us, sorry I mean on the ranges. (Have been reading Terry Pratchett's Discworld books that are far more rational and the adventures can be understood).
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2026/05/13/the-higher-cost-of-a-cheaper-crl/
Matt Lawrie from Greater Auckland Blog.
"Almost two years after leaving as chief executive of City Rail Link Ltd to deliver Dublin’s MetroLink, Dr Sean Sweeny is back. And back in the news, critiquing the cost of the project he once headed.
While I get the points he’s making, and agree with some of them, his comments suggest he’s perhaps too focused on the individual project, at the expense of the massive benefits it delivers to the wider network. A case of not being able to see the rail forest for the CRL trees.
Here’s the whole interview with Katie Bradford."
Transcript is attached with the interview.
Not sure if have seen this Link? IMO very pertinent…
And..wtf? Bishflap Bishop doesnt know…because he wasn't told ?!
IMO : When asked if NACT1 were ideologically rooted morons, the response : we can neither confirm or deny….
: )
Bishop's a very dangerous man.
A well connected one with many axes to grind and backs he'd like to bury them into.
My bet is that Bishop is showing looking dreamy or perhaps thoughtful, as a way of easing him into a position as contender for Ms Willis just to show that the Natzactos aren't devoid of talent and expertise.
Nobody funded me to say that BTW. (But I don't mind them trying as a test for osteomyelitis or something.)
Here's the thing with all of these massive projects: The convention is to seek approval from the governing body and not to include an allowance for inflation or risk. We have to, or baseline estimates could be tweaked by the politically savvy, favouring the wrong projects and the ensuing benefits.
So, excluded from the original budget will be an allowance for inflation for the period between approval and commissioning. Included in the original budget will be a list of risks – the bigger the project, the bigger the list of risks. But, the budget can't assume that ALL the risks will happen, or be based on the cost of them happening, so the application documents tend to have a probability factor incorporated. Who can say in Year 0 what the price of things like oil, labour, and the general economy will be like in Years 5 or 6? Who, when the application was made to implement the design, could have foretold Covid, the Russia/Ukraine war, the attacks on Iran?
Like on your wedding day, when your life stretches out in front of you as a series of happy times but, fast forward six or more years, looking back the relationship has had to weather an endless number of storms that were never envisaged as the guests raised their glasses to the happy couple.
That sets the initial budget in Year 0 dollars, the application is made and the project gets the green light. In CRL's case, after a drawn-out period of political to-ing and fro-ing, that's all included in the ticking clock, post- the baseline estimate.
Depending on the scale of the project (and CRL is obviously one of the biggest) it can take 2 or more years to turn an idea like "an underground tunnel" into a design that is accurate to the mm, not going to be crushed by underwhelming subsurface strata, not going to cause the tower blocks on top of the route to collapse, keeps one eye on improving technology (so it isn't out of date when it is commissioned – but new tech generally comes at a price). Community consultation can also take a while. As George Burns said: "Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair,", the same applies to major infrastructure projects.
Then follows a procurement process that, again in a project of this scale, can take much time. A change in government can invoke changes on the governing body, so sometimes an approved case gets revisited along the way, calling a temporary halt to the design process, while inflation keeps happening and the project clock keeps ticking.
Then follows the construction period. The list of risks gets shorter as the construction proceeds and they either happen or don't happen, like pulling the handle at a casino. All impacting on the final cost in some way. New technology appears and needs to be reviewed and incorporated. Again, CRL is a major undertaking and a vast list of technology will have been monitored, from the bolts used to hold the track in place to making sure the finished fitout remains of a current style. Many people are saying it could have been done quicker, and maybe they have a point, but it was never going to be an overnight thing and look how the economy has flowed and ebbed in that time, while the value of $1 eroded with inflation.
Then as it concludes, politicians sometimes look at the original budget cost and compare it with the final cost. Final costs can always be found wanting, for the above reasons. Some politicians do like Hipkins, who this week called time on the politicisation of major infrastructure projects at the nation's cost; others play shell games by comparing the final cost with the original cost, like talkback shock-jocks winding up the listeners to create a reputation for controversy that attracts more followers. It all comes down to who we, the people, listen to and our capacity to be objective about things that often can't be controlled.
In terms of CRL, instead of handwringing about cost, we can compare it with Victorian London tube tunnels and wonder whether, with 150+ years of faithful service, Aucklanders will be as concerned with the initial cost vs budget arguments as we are today. By the time the Harbour Bridge was finished, as recently as 1959, it had too few lanes based on the early predictions. Some Voxpop politicians could have had a field day with that and probably did, but who today is still wringing their hands about it? The cost of the original bridge plus the "Nippon Clipons" has been far outweighed by the benefits that the bridge brought.
All of the above is IMHO. Trolls and others, have your opinions with my blessing and let me have mine.
I love the London tube example. So true.
Few people know that this was the world’s first underground transit scheme.
Brilliant summary of the complete process. Well done.
Thinker, all the big projects have risk frameworks, risk managers, change management processes, throughout the project life.
In alliance contracts managing risks also have a strong commercial incentive: a mistake cost by one is proportionally paid by all.
That was certainly present in CRL.
Oh fuck these guys.
Cut funding to poor and the needy and cast aspersions on every other damn thing.
Take glee in destroying the media and suppressing turn out.
Pay the largest salaries to those who assess what to cut. We deserve the Liz Trusses because we don’t drum them out of town.
I mean we did have to pay heaps because we didn’t future proof Britomart? That’s a clear example of buying twelve cheap pairs of boots over one good pair, which sounds like Sweenyism.